header-logo header-logo

No blanket ban on referral fees

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

LSB to undertake further review in 2013

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has rejected an outright ban on referral fees.

It consulted last year on its recommendations to strengthen transparency rather than a ban as a means of preventing abuse. It has now fully endorsed this approach, in its document, Referral Fees, Referral Arrangements and Fee Sharing.

However, the eight individual regulators can still opt for a ban as long as they can back it up with evidence and reasons. They must ensure consumers know when and to whom referral fees are to be paid.

The Law Society said it was a “mistaken decision by the LSB, which has failed to act in the public interest”.

However, Seamus Smyth, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, welcomed the decision: “Robust controls are, however, required and the payment of cash incentives should be banned.”

Tim Oliver, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, said the proposals “raise concerns at the potential for a mish-mash of regulatory decisions on referral fees... The LSB states in its paper that it wants to ensure a ‘consistent regulatory approach to the issue’—it is hard to see how that might be achieved.”

The LSB said it would take into account the extent to which consumer outcomes are served when considering applications by regulators to change their regulatory arrangements. It will also undertake a further review of referral fees in 2013–14.

David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, said: “Opposition to payments made by solicitors for business is a rare point on which Lord Justice Jackson and the Law Society can agree.

“Jackson saw referral fees reflecting surplus costs in the system but others argue that a ban on referral fees would merely see a shift of cost from referral fees to other methods of generating business.”

Professor Dominic Regan said: “Given that the thrust of this administration is to reduce what Lord Young considered to be `meddlesome intervention’ I see no will to legislate on referral fees. At best we will see guidelines and unenforceable principles laid down.”

Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll